Welcome to the American Spring

Originally posted by Aim64C
What is the goal of OWS? What will it take for the movement to have completed its purpose? Under what conditions will they consider it no longer
necessary to protest?

Some might actually consider a repeal of a number of the laws that were recently added to the books, as a start. You know; like the NDAA, and the
other stuff allowing Obama to seize control of literally anything in the country whenever he feels like it. You mentioned to Kali that she doesn't
understand how America works; is having a fiat dictator in the Executive Branch, your idea of how it does?

The right has come out against OWS as a monolithic bloc from the get go.

They all think exactly the same, but we're the ones who are pawns, yea whatever

I would try to realise that the situation that Occupy are in, actually has more in common with what conservatives are also experiencing, than you
might think. I saw a lecture from Andrew Breitbart not long before he died. He mentioned that the authorities had at times tried to shut down the
Tea Parties with exactly the same BS sanitation pretext that they used at Zucotti Park. Obama is no more a friend of conservatives than he is anyone
else's.

You can keep viewing Occupy as a bunch of filthy hippy scum, or you can start realising that when Obama brings the hammer down, as he is about to, he
isn't going to be any more lenient with the Right, purely because they are the Right, at all. I know there are some on the Right who do genuinely
care about freedom. Obama isn't going to like that, and neither are his masters in the UN. The way things are going, you might well end up as
cellmates with someone from OWS, in one of the FEMA concentration camps.

And that is why OWS will never accomplish anything other than giving a few douchebags some power. The people don't want to be "normal."
They don't want to find a way to go home and live in peace with family and friends.

You think sleeping in tents and living with the constant threat of being hospitalised by psychopathic police is fun, do you? Maybe you should try it
yourself for a couple of days; you might be less inclined to trivialise it.

There's a war on, in case you hadn't noticed; and I'm not talking about any of the ones overseas here, either. If you think that is an
exaggeration, go and look up the laws that have been passed by the legislative branch since January, beginning with the NDAA. Obama has demonstrated
that he knows damn well what is going on, even if you don't. You might also want to listen to some of Janet Napolitano's euphemistic statements
about domestic terrorism. Americans currently have a pressing need to empty their political colostomy bag in exactly the manner Jefferson predicted,
and the government is entirely aware that at this point, that is long overdue.

Obama likes to think of himself as the second coming of Abe Lincoln; and several other people have also called him that. What nobody seems to
remember, however, is what the most historically significant event during Lincoln's Presidency was. We're working up to that part.

I'm sure that a lot of people in Occupy will be more than happy to go back to their parks and back yards, and enjoy weekend barbecues with their
families. Who wouldn't? I'm equally sure that they will do that; just as soon as they know that they've removed the risk of being dragged out of
their homes and transported to a FEMA camp for processing on a random evening.

You keep attacking my maturity with immature statements, go figure. You've not demonstrated once in any of the post I've seen of yours attacking
Occupy, an admirable amount of maturity nor a statement that doesn't sound like it's on it's umpteenth regurgitation originating with Bill O'Reilly.

What you (along with many others here) have clearly failed to do is check out various Occupy sources. If you had, agree with them or not, you would
see there's more to it than street protests...a lot more. You would also see that there is a very apparent attempt at suppressing the movement, and
that should worry all Americans, in my opinion.

ETA

This is why the OWS movement is looked at like a joke. There is an extreme disconnect between the "objective" (vague as it is) and the actions they
are taking.

There's really not a disconnect at all, think about it. We want the People to have a say in our government, currently we really don't...at least not
enough. Also there's a need for transparency, this movement needs to happen on the streets, in the public eye.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Most of the cases I've seen fall mostly on the shoulders of OWS. In some cases - police response has been unnecessarily intense - but most of it was
initiated and perpetuated by OWS members who like to think the Constitution gives them the right to do whatever they want, wherever they want (because
the State, County/City, and its laws don't exist in their mind).

To be really honest here...and I am aware that Kali won't like me saying this...the Constitution in specific terms, probably isn't in the minds of
most Occupiers. The majority of them that I've seen, exhibit varying degrees of internationalist socialism as their guiding philosophy. They
aren't patriots, for the most part; and I suspect that that is possibly a minor influence on the level of violence we've been seeing from the
police, as well.

Given that, you might wonder how I can advocate Occupy at all. I do because I am still aware that what this government is doing, is not in anyone's
best interests; and stopping that has to be the first priority. America at this point is sliding very rapidly into a state of genuine, undisguised
fascism, and I'm not seeing anyone else on the horizon who gives a damn to nearly the same degree.

If as a result, there is a Trotskyite problem to be dealt with after that, then we will have to cross that bridge when we come to it.

To be really honest here...and I am aware that Kali won't like me saying this...the Constitution in specific terms, probably isn't in the minds of
most Occupiers.

Not only do I not like it, it's not nearly true at all. Dissatisfaction with our government should never be mistaken as not having a love for our
country. Of course, I can only speak for myself but I'm just stating what I have witnessed and researched. Yes there are some who wish to see our
Constitution implemented in a different way, but those discussions largely end with most realizing it cannot be implemented in other ways. Our economy
on the other hand can be managed differently than it has been as can our government.

You keep attacking my maturity with immature statements, go figure. You've not demonstrated once in any of the post I've seen of yours attacking
Occupy, an admirable amount of maturity nor a statement that doesn't sound like it's on it's umpteenth regurgitation originating with Bill
O'Reilly.

Actually, Aim's reply to me was a lot more measured and lucid than I was expecting, to be honest.

What you (along with many others here) have clearly failed to do is check out various Occupy sources.

I don't think it's a matter of lack of research, so much as it is a matter of people seeing things the way they want to see them. Some
conservatives, like Seabag, just want to troll and antagonise people for the most part, but he is actually the exception to the rule. As long as I
keep my own temper under control, and do not react aggressively to their own antagonistic statements, then I tend to be able to reach a point of
common ground with them.

I've noticed that the single main thing I need to do with them, is listen to them. I think the frustration that a lot of them that I see on here
have, comes from not feeling heard. Conservatives are generally people who want to believe that when police or military people take an oath of
enlistment, that they mean it, and are generally going to try and do the right thing. As a result, they have a lot of difficulty accepting claims of
police brutality or military wrongdoing as being genuine; they're not used to thinking that the police or military do the wrong thing.

So when they defend the troops, or the police, or insist that there must be some mitigating factor etc, then I have to simply cool my own jets and
really try and hear that. Once I have, I can then respond by simply asking them questions...by pointing out the level of violence that the police are
using, and asking them if they really feel that the police need to employ that level of violence, in order to do their duty. When I did that with
thehoneycomb, he agreed with me that the answer was no; and then he gave me a link to the Oath Keepers, who are a group who are committed to upholding
their oaths, and doing the right thing generally.

Some might actually consider a repeal of a number of the laws that were recently added to the books, as a start. You know; like the NDAA, and
the other stuff allowing Obama to seize control of literally anything in the country whenever he feels like it. You mentioned to Kali that she
doesn't understand how America works; is having a fiat dictator in the Executive Branch, your idea of how it does?

And how does OWS make this proposed repeal of laws possible?

Where is the legislation they are drafting and petitioning to introduce?

We are adults, now. Part of the assertion of our Constitution is that the people are smart enough to function on their own with their own
governments. The problem with merely voicing one's complaint about something is that it is akin to a teenager on her own for the first time calling
mom and dad to complain about the dirty dishes.

You can keep viewing Occupy as a bunch of filthy hippy scum

I called them stupid. At least get my generalized insult correct.

I would try to realise that the situation that Occupy are in, actually has more in common with what conservatives are also experiencing, than
you might think.

You're focused on this "evil police state" idea.

Remember the crazy physicist from Patch Adams? "How many fingers am I holding up?" - You're focused on the problem. Not the solution.

That goes back to my standing in fire and pulling unnecessary mobs reference. The solution to the problem of a "police state" is not to go out and
aggravate said police.

I saw a lecture from Andrew Breitbart not long before he died. He mentioned that the authorities had at times tried to shut down the Tea
Parties with exactly the same BS sanitation pretext that they used at Zucotti Park.

I would be curious to see this. I do recall one of the incidents where a SWAT team was called in on a Tea Party meeting (though the response from
said Tea Party members was considerably different from the type of response generally seen by the OWS crowd).

Obama is no more a friend of conservatives than he is anyone else's.

Honestly, I don't think Obama has much to do with the police response to OWS or the Tea Party.

The man spends more time watching basketball and picking brackets than he does paying attention to his duties of the POTUS (which do not include
micro-managing police forces operated by the State that rest outside Federal jurisdiction).

You think sleeping in tents and living with the constant threat of being hospitalised by psychopathic police is fun, do you? Maybe you should
try it yourself for a couple of days; you might be less inclined to trivialise it.

I was in boy scouts. Camping in the park is akin to a family reunion for me (indeed - there are few things better than waking up to fire-cooked
bacon&eggs and frying up the fish you caught for dinner). However, we did this sort of thing where camping was permitted, or rented meeting halls for
larger events (that only lasted a day). Thus, police involvement was never an issue.

Of course, one must beg the question... why camp in the park to begin with? I have a thing called housing. If I have all day to sit around at a
protest - I also have all day to walk and/or drive to the destination of said display. I could even organize with people there and take home notes to
type up on a computer and/or relay to forums or blogs.

There's a war on, in case you hadn't noticed; and I'm not talking about any of the ones overseas here, either.

A war, huh?

You shouldn't use that term so lightly.

If you think that is an exaggeration, go and look up the laws that have been passed by the legislative branch since January, beginning with the
NDAA. Obama has demonstrated that he knows damn well what is going on, even if you don't.

Because Obama drafts laws and passes them through congress.

I'm equally sure that they will do that; just as soon as they know that they've removed the risk of being dragged out of their homes and
transported to a FEMA camp for processing on a random evening.

Well, it wouldn't be ATS without the contributions such as this.

You need to get out more.

Yes - there are bad things going on in our government. But you're forgetting that the many people most distrusting of the government (and deemed
sane by medical personnel) come from the very force that you are so paranoid of.

The military is, per capita, more densely populated by anarchists and libertarians than any other demographic out there.

What you (along with many others here) have clearly failed to do is check out various Occupy sources. If you had, agree with them or not, you
would see there's more to it than street protests...a lot more. You would also see that there is a very apparent attempt at suppressing the movement,
and that should worry all Americans, in my opinion.

There is more to it than street protests, to be certain.

Still, no productivity out of it.

There's really not a disconnect at all, think about it. We want the People to have a say in our government, currently we really don't...at
least not enough. Also there's a need for transparency, this movement needs to happen on the streets, in the public eye.

You are not supposed to have a direct say in the Federal Government. The Federal Government is designed to moderate the States. It is the State
government the people are supposed to be most closely involved with.

Further - the movement will not be productive on the streets. Not in this format. It will be productive around dinner tables, amongst friends and
family, within debate of teams and their brackets, and in board rooms.

While you were busy making fart-noises with your arm pit, I was in a class of "smart" kids where we discussed solving such simple problems as
catch-22 legal issues with organ donation, world hunger, transportation energy needs, etc.

Yes. Because I said so.

I also followed through with reflexive questions that any mission statement should be able to answer or provide in the form of policy.

I read where you said you're all into the constitution and rights, but....
You're just not into people being dumb enough to try to actually exercise those rights, especially for something that you don't agree with.

You're obviously confused.

OWS has every right to assemble in an area that can accommodate them, and in a peaceful manner. They are not to be obstructive or abusive.

Police, on the other hand, are to remain professional and disciplined. Violations on both accords should be investigated and prosecuted
accordingly.

Even if they do, it's an exercise in futility because you say so.

By all means, continue to stand in fire while trying to beat back a tide of gasoline with a fishing pole.

Just don't try and make me feel like it would have worked if only you had more people to help you.

In the mean time, I'll look for things that can be done and plan contingencies for if (more than likely when) things go south.

Originally posted by Aim64C
And how does OWS make this proposed repeal of laws possible?

Where is the legislation they are drafting and petitioning to introduce?

Attempting to work with the system, has been demonstrated not to work at this point. The NDAA had three dissenting votes cast on its'
passage. That's how many members of Congress aren't on the corporate take.

I agree with you that protest isn't the most effective means of bringing about change, however...Kali and I have had that argument, as mentioned.

You can keep viewing Occupy as a bunch of filthy hippy scum

I called them stupid. At least get my generalized insult correct.

LOL. Your honesty is appreciated.

You're focused on this "evil police state" idea.

Remember the crazy physicist from Patch Adams? "How many fingers am I holding up?" - You're focused on the problem. Not the solution.

This describes my own proposed solution; no protest required. Admittedly, Occupy don't seem to think much of it, for some reason.

Of course, one must beg the question... why camp in the park to begin with? I have a thing called housing.

This is amusing.

There's a war on, in case you hadn't noticed; and I'm not talking about any of the ones overseas here, either.

A war, huh?

You shouldn't use that term so lightly.

We'll have to look forward to when the police start actually killing people...which rest assured, is coming...so that when that starts to happen, the
use of such terms will no longer seem quite so frivolous on my part.

Because Obama drafts laws and passes them through congress.

Do you know anything about what said laws actually do, in this case?

The military is, per capita, more densely populated by anarchists and libertarians than any other demographic out there.

While you were busy making fart-noises with your arm pit, I was in a class of "smart" kids where we discussed solving such simple problems as catch-22
legal issues with organ donation, world hunger, transportation energy needs, etc.

Not only "smart", but "witty" too.

I wasn't aware that I was dealing with someone coming from such a learned precipice.

Taking that into consideration, it's all become crystal clear to me now, you're right the OWS declaration is useless drivel, thanks for setting me
straight on that.

Originally posted by Aim64C
While you were busy making fart-noises with your arm pit, I was in a class of "smart" kids where we discussed solving such simple problems as
catch-22 legal issues with organ donation, world hunger, transportation energy needs, etc.

You really do need to work on that condescension problem. It's not going to help you make new friends.

While you were busy making fart-noises with your arm pit, I was in a class of "smart" kids where we discussed solving such simple problems as
catch-22 legal issues with organ donation, world hunger, transportation energy needs, etc. Yes. Because I said so. I also followed through with
reflexive questions that any mission statement should be able to answer or provide in the form of policy

I,,,am,,,reading through this post you made because its one of an attach of a person not the Issue of the American Spring.

Perhaps you could grace us with an on topic report,,,if it,s not,,,2,,,much,,,trouble...
I am sure Occupy could focus a bit,,, maybe move the center to D.C.
put some energy into exposing where the trillions of dollars go while people live in ruin in this country.
you know,,,if it,s,,, not,,, too,,, much trouble,,,

Across the nation the dialogue has changed.
On federal, state and local levels government is being challenged in courts and on the streets to answer to the people that elect them, to be more
transparent and less restrictive of liberties.
Hundreds of thousands of people have moved their money out of big banks and into local banks or credit unions.
Dozens of mortgage holders (and counting) facing foreclosure can and do directly credit Occupiers (Occupy Homes) and members of the NLG for stopping
the foreclosure process and renegotiating mortgages.
Also, a very vivid display of just how fascist our government is becoming.

As a brit looking at this situation. All I can say is that when the president can order the exicution of an American. On his own say so. Then some
thing has gone wrong with your system. As to he occupi movement, these are people protesting about the state of things and the way that people with
money can control every thing. From the election on wards, then some thing has got to be done. I wish you all the best of luck and hope that some
thing can be done.

Attempting to work with the system, has been demonstrated not to work at this point.

How many letters have been submitted to Congress? Do you know who your district representative is? While I do not always have a direct line of
communication to my Federal representative to the House or Senate - I do know their representatives they have tasked with being intermediaries. I
even have plans to draft specific legislation to then submit to my representative for review.

Patience and persistence is of the essence. You can't scream your head off about a few issues and conclude that there is no working with the system
because things didn't go favorably.

First, and foremost; the hold the political parties has needs to be loosened. Candidates need to be selected based on their character, values, and
integrity over their party status. I would vote for a liberal if he/she understood that he/she was a representative as opposed to an ideologue
(compared to a conservative).

That can only be done over the course of several election cycles and by the organized effort to introduce third party candidates and/or reign in the
renegade tendencies of existing parties.

The NDAA had three dissenting votes cast on its' passage. That's how many members of Congress aren't on the corporate take.

Did you write a letter to your representative(s) explaining why it was a bad idea? Or did you sign a group letter/petition submitted to them?

In many cases, when direct contact with a representative is attempted - that representative (or his/her staff) will send you a reply explaining the
intention/reason behind that representative's vote or current bias on the topic.

If you find the response lacking or otherwise demonstrating why that member should not be in office - you are free to vote for a different candidate
in the next elections, or start a petition for the removal of that representative (something that needs to be done more often, in my opinion; even if
the motion dies - it still sends a message that the 'winning' of an election is not a right to make decisions solely on a personal basis).

I agree with you that protest isn't the most effective means of bringing about change, however...Kali and I have had that argument, as
mentioned.

Demonstrations have their place. The issue is that there needs to be a follow-through. The demonstration is to raise awareness and to let people
know what is going on (because we can't be expected to be fully aware of everything going on at every level of our government and society while still
maintaining a functional life).

However, for it to work in raising awareness - sensible statements must be made with plenty of cited resources; and there does need to be an
atmosphere of professionalism.

When a group of people is asked to move by the police - even if that group of people is within the rights; the response should not be a middle finger
with insinuations that police are animals. The 'correct' response is to ask where it would be appropriate to move to, and to relocate and raise
issue with the City Council, later. The issue is not one of life and death or in defense of personal property (in which case - a person has every
right to challenge police authority and act in self-defense; and my training/function in the military is currently similar to the role of police... if
I'm coming to haul someone out of their house, particularly for something non-violent - I'm going to make damned sure that I'm acting on court
authority and following due process).

It's simply not worth being combative on the street. It is only going to escalate and reach a point of no return where the crowd control starts
coming out (because the police start to worry they will be trampled under a riot and the crowd starts fearing they will be mowed down like arcade
fodder).

The success and power of a demonstration is what happens after the group breaks up and goes home. It's how many people leave the initial
demonstration and return to their families, friends, etc and discuss the issues with them (and how much sense they make while doing it).

Which is why a proper and successful demonstration framework should never suffer from being told to break up and go home.

LOL. Your honesty is appreciated.

I hoped you would see the humor in that. I tend to have a very dry and literal sense of humor that often gets overlooked on these sites. Generally
speaking - if I sound like I'm being a little too 'out there' or contradicting myself - it's intended to be poking fun at things in general.

Well... I suppose "housing" is a bit lavish of a term for it by American standards of living. But, my room mates and I have taken better care of
this trailer than any of its previous occupants. After a few days of rain, we practically need a breaching charge to get through the door (the
trailer was not leveled properly and the swelling has made an already sticky door nearly impossible to open). The tweakers next door need to
disappear... the methods need not be specific... why the guy bangs on his drums all day and night is beyond me (and how he hasn't gotten any better
after all of that 'practice' is also beyond me).

Still, it keeps the water off of my head when it's not raining, the heat out in the winter and the cold out during the summer, and I've only fallen
through the floor once. It's home.

I'm being a little goofy - but the plan is to save on housing costs to put back for a house (bought, built, or otherwise). And not a single one of
us use a government program for sustenance (well, unless you count me being a member of the Reserves ... but, you know, I have to at least show up in
uniform to get paid for that).

We'll have to look forward to when the police start actually killing people...which rest assured, is coming...so that when that starts to
happen, the use of such terms will no longer seem quite so frivolous on my part.

You're assuming far too much homogenous control over the police and/or military.

Under the circumstances you are describing, a civil war would be unavoidable. The military and police would fracture along ideological lines with the
population. In the best case scenario, the military attempts to stay out of the quarreling and preserve its role in national defense (which would
take on a whole new meaning with all kinds of domestic chaos to be exploited by foreign powers). In the worst case scenario - you are looking at the
military completely breaking up into various regional and ideological factions along with local police forces.

You will never really see a "war" purely against "the people" in this country. We don't have the detainment facilities or infrastructure to
support a Gestapo - and the population is far too well armed to be exterminated by the meager police and military forces (comprising less than 2% of
the population)... PRESUMING you could somehow mind-control them into being robotic anti-civilian police.

It wouldn't be straight forward. You would find quite a few to have low tolerance for protests and 'uprisings' of that sort - but they would
simply never commit to collecting weapons or detaining large portions of the population (to the degree asserted by those who believe in "FEMA camps"
as some kind of internment facility).

For example - I could theoretically deploy, as part of an expeditionary security team, in-CONUS, in support of local police forces. I would quell a
riot or social disturbance voluntarily (who was right, wrong, and needs to be judicially punished can be determined after the chaos comes to an end).
I would, however, not follow an order to drag someone out of his/her home because the EPA said it was protected land. I would not stand for an order
to search homes without warrants, and exercise my authority to apprehend an individual issuing unlawful orders under the Constitution - to include
unlawful warrants (the rights provided therein usurp state rights and federal legislation that is not an amendment to the Constitution, itself).

So, in that respect, you'll find that the "police state" is not very straight-forward. You would probably find me to be a "dog" or "pig"
because I would be on the side of a police during concerns over a protest/demonstration - but I would seriously have to resist shooting on-reflex
anyone giving me an order to search or seize unlawfully. Different priorities and personal convictions.

Others in the police/military would find themselves in the protest, while being more than happy to "do what it takes" to search and destroy drug
dealers/vendors (while having little interest in searching for anything else).

At a time when laws and chains of command become blurred (surely to happen in such extreme cases as massive civil unrest in a preempt to civil war) -
you would likely see a wide range of activity being done by the people within police and military forces under different authorities and for different
reasons. Just like you would see gangs and vigilante groups form up to do a number of different things, as well.

You honestly wouldn't know it, from reading this forum.

Six years in the military. After such exposure to raw bureaucratic stupidity, you will find few who are very supportive of said bureaucrats and the
stupidity derived from them.

i think you are being willfully ignorant of the facts in this case,
one large part of OWS is the call for LOCAL money being kept locally and put to use for the people in the state where the money originates,

case in point,
600,000 people moved their money from big wall street banks to there local banks,

case in point
17 states are now in the process of emulating the state bank of north Dakota (spelling?)

this removes money from state governments from the too big to fail banks and creates a lender to be beholden to the state and the peoples of the state
instead of shareholders,

​Earlier today we wrote of what appeared to be an Occupy Wall Street-related bank boycott planned for November 5th. We've spoken to Kristen
Christian, the 27-year-old creator of the event, who has clarified some things. For one, it's not an Occupy Wall Street-organized event, though
members of the Occupied movement support the idea and are planning to join in. Further, it's not an effort based in anarchy, or an event that
Christian hopes will cause an economic crisis (any more than the one we're already in). "It's not people taking their money and burying it under
their mattress. It's shifting the money to a company people respect the practices of.

The Occupy movement functioned as an amplifier for the Bank Transfer Day campaign.

Further, the argument falls flat when the controversial issue of OWS is the people camping in parks who "are the 99%" who "have no money."

There is a "background" to OWS that is what you see in the support and criticism of it on these boards. Those discussing OWS are doing more for it
than those "hardcore activists" on the streets. That background is what made the Bank Transfer Day the success it was (combined with it hitting
media ticklers that got it reported in the MSM).

what have you done to fix this problem? complain about those who try?

Walk softly and carry a big stick. My instincts are militaristic in nature and my thinking suited to the strategic elimination of hostile resources.
I already have a number of contingency plans regarding the emergence of a number of dynamic "civil war" situations.

My "activism" is specifically what you want to avoid in this country.

I do, however, stay in contact with political resources and draft prototype legislation to submit to representatives. It may or may not ever see the
light of day - or serve as the basis for future legislation to simplify and reduce our government - but that is what it is.

My role is that of vanguard. I drop the hammer when the bullets start flying and try to advise others on how to avoid such things ever needing to
happen.

And I'm telling you that OWS, currently, is not doing a very good job of steering this country away from that trajectory.

Which, in all honesty; makes the prospect of rebuilding our nation much simpler. Wait until things crumble, purge, and rebuild. Forest fires are a
natural and sensible way to refresh the landscape for future generations.

But, I get the distinct impression a number of "trees" currently inhabiting said "forest" would rather avoid the whole part about being reduced to
cinders.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.